<p>Do you folks really beileve that hours of study will equal an improved score? Sure it seems that this is how it should be but there are no guarantees that this would be the case. If he did withdraw and got a lower score there goes some decent scholarship money, at least one great admission, a year of working towards his goal and all of those ap fees. Furthermore without a significant score boost or a really meaningful job all of these schools that he has already applied to may not look favorably on his reapplication. I would absolutely support it if this was his choice but there are no guarantees so it has to be his decision. At least from where I sit it isn’t so simple as, put in 100 hours of work, get a really big score, get offered big money to go wherever you want to, live the good life. If it were I’m sure he would do it.</p>
<p>LawFuture: what is the other option? Go to the most expensive school out there, knowing from the start he will never pay those loans back, turn down scholarship money, not bother with studying for another LSAT or talking to the law schools about deferring, and then stick the taxpayers with the bill? </p>
<p>My parents would have disowned me if I did that, not encouraged me or halfheartedly talked to me about my options. </p>
<p>There aren’t any guarantees either way. But schools take the highest LSAT score, and if he’s scoring lower in practice tests, he can always not take it. If he talks to a school about deferring, he is not obligated to defer, but the school might give him more money to go this year, or it might contractually agree to take him in 2014. </p>
<p>There are also no guarantees regarding Berkeley, except for the guarantee that he will be in epic amounts of debt with no desire to get the jobs that could enable him to pay it back, nor any guarantee of getting those jobs if he wanted them. Chew on that for a while. </p>
<p>It’s Febraury. Your son could throw out apps to T30 or T50 schools, just to see if they will, even at this late date, give him money to go. Law school apps are down; schools will admit and throw money at your son.</p>
<p>But if the little dear can’t be bothered to even try, then that’s that, right? </p>
<p>My parents would have disowned me…</p>
<p>lawfuture:</p>
<p>no one said anything about withdrawing. Pick a school to attend (or two, if WL’ed). Retake in June. If the score is much better, 170+, then withdraw and reapply 6 weeks later. A 3.8/170 is sure to obtain plenty of fee waivers, so the cost is $21 to LSAC to reapply.</p>
<p>Sure, a higher score probably won’t make a difference to Cal, but a 172+ would be a high chance to CCN, and even Harvard if apps are down next year again. A 174 makes two of CCN a near-lock, and likely H. More importantly, it could also mean $120k from UVa and a bunch of money from Michigan; or, Rothman at 'SC. Negotiate up the ladder.</p>
<p>I disagree with most posts here. While an LSAT retake may very well lead to a higher score, it does not eliminate the dilemma of deciding between a scholarship school versus a higher ranked school. If a much improved score would lead to a full tuition scholarship at Columbia or another highly ranked school, the student is likely offered also a place at either Yale, Harvard or Stanford. So the dilemma may not go away.</p>
<p>Whether your son would be happy taking a year off without a defined goal/employment should be an important consideration. Obviously none of the “debt issues” would apply if he has financial support from family.</p>
<p>^^Yes, but the “dilemma” has much different parameters. The OP’s son doesn’t know if he wants to permanently relo to California, so portability is important. A big scholarship from say, Michigan, is portable. A big scholarship from 'SC is not.</p>
<p>More importantly, the OP is considering paying sticker for Boalt, when he could get Boalt or a peer school (Michigan) on a scholarship next year. To me, this is a no-brainer.</p>
<p>Also want to point out that Boalt does scholarship matching (or at least tries to offer a close amount) if you get a scholarship from a top school. So if you reapply next year to say, Michigan, and get a scholarship but still want to go to Boalt-- you’re chances of getitng a scholarship at Boalt go up anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I [url=<a href=“http://www.frontiersin.org/Neuroanatomy/10.3389/fnana.2012.00032/abstract]absolutely[/url”>http://www.frontiersin.org/Neuroanatomy/10.3389/fnana.2012.00032/abstract]absolutely[/url</a>] believe it, so long as the studying is done properly. The risk of coming back with a lower score is minimal. First, anyone who scores a 168 can score a 170. The margin is so small there that a good tutor will be able to pick out the problem and teach your son to address it. Second, schools only have to report the highest LSAT score to US News, so even if your son scored lower he’d still be treated as a 3/83/168. The only difference would be his applying a year later, which given the rapid decrease in applicants would still probably be of significant benefits. To use myself as an example, the difference between my applying the year I did and a year later was probably a lost $45k in scholarship money (over 3 years). If I had known there would be such a massive decrease in applications, I would absolutely have waited. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to disagree here. Applying late in the cycle can only hurt you. The funds set aside for scholarships are not unlimited and your bargaining power decreases as classes fill. Much better to just wait for the next cycle. Sure, you spend a few months doing something besides law school, but pick the right thing and it’s a net benefit come interview time. As to the rest of your points, I concur in full. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Neither of these two things are correct. The first errs in that it ignores the practicalities of the problem. Having to choose between Stanford and Columbia is not the same as having to choose between Berkeley and UCLA because the employment outcomes are vastly different. Given that public sector employment is the goal here, the one is an easy and the other a difficult choice. The tradeoff in employment outcomes within the T14 is not that large but the tradeoff between the T14 and outside it is substantial. The second consideration, his son’s happiness, is misplaced. No one should go to law school without retaking a 3.83/168 regardless of how happy it makes them. You cannot make loan payments with happiness, and debt burden goes a long way to making sure you have none to spare. As to financial support, there’s no good reason to throw money at schools when you don’t have to, regardless of where it comes from.</p>
<p>^
This is not a math problem where there is a correct versus incorrect choice. One needs to weigh in individual circumstances. While you may see no differences between T14, others may. Likewise there may be reasons to choose a school outside of T14 as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess the logic wasn’t clear. The OP’s son could deposit at Cal or 'SC and then retake the LSAT in June. If scores go down, the son attends LS in the fall. If the score jumps – which it should with serious study time – the OP then withdraws and reapplies ~6 weeks later.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But even if we follow your logic padad (and I do), why should the OP pay sticker for Cal in September '13, when he could get big money from Cal (or peer) in September '14? THAT just doesn’t make any (financial) sense, IMO.</p>
<p>Re: HYS. If the son was gunning for a clerkship, academia or federal prosecutor – all of which are prestige hoes – son should attend highest ranked LS. Period. But son is interested in PI, which is not so prestige-focused. (NYU does extremely well in PI, and NYU would throw money at son with a high LSAT.)</p>
<p>^ If financial factors are the only considerations. To a young person, 21-22 years old, one year may be an eternity. So much of our choices are, however, made based on our emotional needs. Berkeley is a great law school. The applicant has obviously done very well to be offered a place, and i am not sure that any parents should tell their kid that he could or may do better. I may add that there are reasons beyond job prospects of choosing HYS over other schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? With this, I strongly disagree. As a parent, who thinks he is wise, I see it as my job to give rational advice, and avoiding bone-crushing debt is one of the simpler recommendations any parent could/should give. Indeed, I have already had that discussion with my OL, and clearly pointed out why ED to his first choice school was just plain stupid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For example? (Not trying to be snarky, but this is a serious question.) Why spend ~$300k to attend a Professional school, if not for jobs?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I apologize for misunderstanding. I agree with this advice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a difference in the T14s. The difference is vastly smaller than between the T14s and outside the T14s.</p>
<p>^^ I suppose there are many of us who may not have used their professional degrees. Many MDs never practice medicine. Many may choose one medical school over others although these schools may have similar professional outcome expectations. I would think it should hold true for law as well although I am not a lawyer. I would think people like Bill Clinton may have picked Yale over other law schools for reasons that have little to do with employment statistics. I do know several law students who have picked their schools based on the presence of specific faculty.</p>
<p>Whether law school loans are “bone crushing” debt is debatable since most are indeed coping with it. I read somewhere that about a quarter of law students graduated from top schools without loans, presumably with family supports.</p>
<p>“If financial factors are the only considerations. To a young person, 21-22 years old, one year may be an eternity. So much of our choices are, however, made based on our emotional needs.”</p>
<p>Um… so what? If he thinks that waiting one year is an eternity, what is he going to think of spending an extra ten years paying down student loan debt? I would accept that logic for undergrads, but there comes a point when you say “Grow up, you’re applying to professional school.” </p>
<p>(Yes, I’m harsh.)</p>
<p>I also disagree that students are “managing” their debt. Thing is, the debt stories are always at least five years old - three years to get through law school, plus two years of grace periods/forbearance. Five years ago, law school was a LOT cheaper than it is now. The real horror has yet to hit, and when it does, it will be a nightmare. A lifetime nightmare.</p>
<p>Also, loan repayment is the current policy, not a law of nature nor a constitutional right. By the time the OP’s son gets through his ten years, the federal government will have already been forgiving loans for the better part of a decade - to the tune of tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars per year. After haemorrhaging money like that, they will likely change their policies, leaving kids like the OP with a mountain of debt. </p>
<p>The OP is betting his entire financial future on the loan repayments being just as generous as they are today, despite the fact that the federal government has yet to write off a single loan. LawFuture talks about there being no guarantees with retaking the LSAT, but there are even fewer guarantees with loan repayment. (My guess is that a form of modified bankruptcy will replace loan forgiveness.)</p>
<p>Doesn’t Berkeley have a loan repayment program to help out graduates at PI jobs that pay less than 65K per year? I presume the money is from endowment rather than federal sources. I don’t disagree that a large debt from loans could be problematic but would argue that it is less of a problem for students whose family could help out, either in funding the cost upfront or in discharging the loan afterward. I dont know the financial means of OP but as the son went to a top LAC, I presume either the family could qualify for need-based aids or is able to fund the cost. Perhaps the debt burden may not be a big issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe that’s because Clinton went to school in the 70s when law school cost barely a fraction of what it costs now and we weren’t in the worst economy since the Great Depression. There used to be reasons to go to law school that didn’t factor in economics. There aren’t anymore.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually I think this is unlikely. PSLF is classed as revenue neutral (even though it really isn’t) so there’s no political reason to cut it. The real concern is them cutting IBR.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No doubt extremely wealthy parents would have paid full freight for their prodigy to attend the school of his/her choice.</p>
<p>But the OP never indicated that s/he was wealthy and will to pay. For the non-wealth – the masses – assuming $300k of a kid’s debt is foolish, IMO.</p>
<p>Yes, top law schools have LRAPs and the feds have IBR. But, it is still debt that hangs out there for 10 years, impacting home loans, car loans, future job opportunities, and even marriage. (Something to check: does LRAP still work if OP’s son is making $50k, but marries a doctor making $300k, resulting in a top one percenter?)</p>
<p>Maybe it all depends on perspective and geography, but can’t agree with pa; I’m not sure where this “Many MDs never practice medicine” is accurate, but it’s not anywhere I know of. Most MDs do what they’re trained to do-practice medicine. Very very few don’t.
I have no knowledge of “scholarship matching”-I’ll leave that to others-but over $220,000 in debt for Berkley is the very definition of bone-crushing debt; with interest accrual, the student’s bought a house before finishing law school. And as OP’s student has no interest in biglaw, it’s going to take a very long time to pay that nearly 3/4 of a million back.
And maybe years ago people got law degrees for purposes other than to practice law(although Bill Clinton is at best an incomplete example, as he taught law school and was Arkansas Attorney General), those days are long gone; it’s just too expensive.
OP’s student needs to do a full cost/benefit analysis of the schools, and consider the advice to re-take the LSAT. This is an enormous amount of money.</p>
<p>if your son wants CA, but doesn’t have ties there, it will be important for him to attend a CA school.</p>
<p>of the three choices here, i would take USC. even at same price, i would take USC over UCLA, so UCLA is eliminated. USC at 120k v. berkeley at sticker is a pretty easy choice, as well. while berkeley is clearly superior to usc, it’s not worth 120k. i cannot overstate the benefit of being debt free. the only time i would ever recommend taking on debt is for YSH. berkeley is elite, but it isn’t quite those three schools and isn’t worth nearly that much scholarship money. NOTE: if your son isn’t sure he wants to settle in CA, the calculus changes; USC/UCLA do not have strong national reach.</p>
<p>also, in regards to a retake: if your son is confident he can do at least 2-4+ points better, then it might be a good idea to retake. a retake is never a bad decision, but there is a possibility that the year would be a bit of a waste if there isn’t an increase.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps true, but they do not start med school with the intent to do something else (or, medical research).</p>